Month: September 2017

Utah Nurse, Alex Wubbels, has been all over the headlines recently after an altercation between her and Utah police was posted online and went viral. The incident happened July 26, when a car crash victim was admitted to the University of Utah Hospital burn unit; he was in a coma. Though the man was not a suspect in the wreck, which killed the other driver, police asked for his blood to be drawn.

According to CNN reports:

—-“Wubbels, the charge nurse in the burn unit, presented the officers with a printout of hospital policy on drawing blood and said their request did not meet the criteria. Hospital policy specified police needed either a judge’s order or the patient’s consent, or the patient needed to be under arrest, before obtaining a blood sample.

:

Salt Lake City Mayor,Jackie Biskupski ,said Wednesday the officers violated several city and department policies, including those pertaining to arrests, ethics and officer conduct. The officers have 20 days to respond to the results of the internal investigation, after which Chief Mike Brown will determine what employment action should be taken. The police department said it had no comment on the report. “

:

:

Detective Jeff Payne eventually grabbed Nurse Wubbels when she demanded a search warrant before allowing the patient’s blood to be drawn. She was then arrested as the altercation became more aggressive on part of the officers involved. Payne and the other officers involved have been placed on administrative leave. As a Libertarian, and staunch supporter of constitutional law, let us examine exactly why Alex Wubbels is a hero, from both a legal and moral standard.

:

Legally, Wubbels was defending not only her company hospital policy, but the 4th amendment of the United States Constitution, the supreme law of the land. The 4th amendment of the Constitution reads as follows:

:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

:

In this particular situation, the police are attempting to seize a man’s blood. Is blood considered personal property? Well, if we analyze any basic traffic stop, an officer who wants to seize a vehicle or any contents inside the vehicle, must first obtain the owner’s voluntary consent or obtain a certified judicial search warrant with probable cause established. If vehicles are considered personal property, it is easy to imagine that blood is the ultimate definition of personal property, a substance that is literally manufactured by our own bodies. In 2013, the Supreme Court decided in Missouri v. McNeely , that the harvesting of blood in regards to a police investigation did require consent and/or a warrant.

Honestly, how would any of us feel if an officer could just walk up to us and say, “You look a little buzzed, roll up your sleeze, im drawing your blood now.” In 2015, the Tennessee Highway Patrol did just that with their controversial “No refusal DUI checkpoint stops”, that were met with harsh criticism by civil liberties activists. Many even disobeyed and fought the constitutionality of such checkpoints. Regardless, search warrants were still issued during most of those check point stops.

A warrant creates a necessary roadblock between police and arbitrary abuse of power. It creates one last opportunity for a judge to look at the situation and say, “This officer doesn’t have the right to do this”, or “This officer has the right”. While many judges often distribute search warrants arbitrarily and unfairly, atleast it creates a small deterrence for officers to easily abuse their authority. And this is exactly why the founders drafted the 4th amendment the way they did. They were sick of the British walking into their houses and confiscating their good without any regard or debate of legalities.

This Utah nurse not only made a stand for the Constitution but also for human rights. The victim at hand was not accused of any crime and the officers had no legal authority to take his property; i.e. his blood. If the 4th amendment did not apply to our blood, it could create an opportunity for blood harvesting, experimentation, and all sorts of deadly scenarios.

In my Shadow Report, Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform , I address the problem of “policing for profit”, whereas police departments often seize properties illegally, only to turn around and sell those items to profit their departments. Civil asset Forfeiture is a huge concern all across this nation. I could only imagine if a market for blood was opened up to private corporations. It would create another fascist relationship between big pharma and big government.

Kudos to Alex Wubbels for defending life, liberty, and the 4th amendment of our Constitution. It is a sad day in this country when a nurse is doing more to protect the 4th amendment than our elected congress members who passed laws like the Patriot Act which undermine the 4th amendment.

Maybe Ms.Wubbels should act as a Constitutional consultant to our Republican and Democratic leaders on what it means to strictly adhere to the founding principles of this nation which lead to the rise of what used to be known as— “The most free nation on Earth. “

I look forward to seeing Ms.Wubbels attain justice for the abuse she suffered protecting our beloved bill of rights. She is a true role model to girls,boys,women, and men residing in this great nation of the United States and elsewhere.

The current model governing family law courts is extremely outdated and archaic. It is governed by a 1950’s chauvinistic view towards marriage and parentage. Men are expected to be emotionless, robotic-breadwinners whereas women are expected to be keepers of the home and children. Women now work. The economy is in shambles whereas even those who are not burdened with child support or alimony are forced to work two jobs to stay afloat. Below, I have proposed 10 ways to drastically improve fairness in the family law courts.

1. Remove presumptions: When a man and woman enter into a courtroom, the presumption is that women are already the custodial parents who deserve child support. The courts should presume that both parents are equally shared in their rights. There should be a presumption of 50/50 shared custody with no mandate of child support payments.

2. Repeal Title IV-D of The Social Security Act: This law states that the Federal Government will give $2 to the State government, for every $1 they collect in Child Support payments. This creates an automatic incentive for courts to set high child-support measurements. The extra money awarded to the states also does not benefit the children, it goes into “slush” funds. There is no basis for the state to receive profits in these cases. It creates a conflict of interest.

3. Limit the Child Support Enforcement Agency’s Power: CSEA administrators should NOT be acting as judges. They should NOT be issuing and calculating child support orders. They have no authority to hear special circumstances, to forgive debt, or to deviate from normal guidelines. It is costing tax payers over 3 billion dollars a year to staff and maintain these agencies which probably shouldn’t exist to begin with or should atleast be severely downsized.

4. Give equal representation: Under the constitution, in criminal law, defendants are entitled to representation even if they cannot afford an attorney themselves. In child support cases, the state is a profiting party that has vested interests. The petitioning party is backed by the Child Support Enforcement Agency with incentives being paid to the state via Title IV sec D award payments. While child support cases are technically considered “civil cases”, the repercussions and complexity of family law are very severe; not to mention a child being involved. If the courts truly believe in the best interest of the child, they will seek to properly represent and protect both parents. Fathers who feel protected and considered are much more likely to accept their duties if they don’t feel so scared and alienated from the process. This is why I believe both parents should have court appointed advocates to give everyone the best deal. Happy parents= Happy children.

5. Build up Non-custodial Parents: According to my research, parents who make under then national medium income ($42K) per year, are considered at “high risk” for going into arrears. Fathers or (NCP’s) who make under $42K per year should be given the option to complete job programs in lieu of sanctions. If the courts can offer programs that will help the paying parent reach that benchmark of $42K per year, they will become “low risk” at falling into default.

6. Remove Crippling Sanctions: The courts can garnish their wages, seize their bank accounts, liquidate their properties, do whatever you want to recover owed child support payments. However, do not suspend a person’s driver’s license and do not incarcerate them. By doing either, you severely limit that person’s ability to earn an income. They get caught into a cycle of jail, accumulation of debt, and a destroyed resume. No one wants to hire someone who has a record. And if you live in a city that has poor public transportation, getting back and forth to jobs can become extremely burdensome, thus limiting job opportunities. Debtors prisons were outlawed for a reason. To transform someone’s child into a source of someone’s imprisonment is a crime unto itself. A married man who doesn’t provide for his child is left alone by government, however an unmarried man is subject to discrimination. Find out why the parent is unable to keep up with the order and in the “best interest of the child” make it easier for the parent to be able to keep up with the order!

7. Let both parents opt-out: Women can legally murder their children via abortion and thanks to “Safe Haven Laws”, they can also drop off their children at Fire-stations or Police Departments with no questions asked. A woman who makes the decision that she is not emotionally or financially ready to be a mother is given the option to choose parentage. Men are told to suck it up or face prison. The parameters found in states that allow abortion, should also apply to men. Up until a certain point, determined by law, a man should be able to dissolve his desire to be a parent just as a woman can. Many will argue that it will create more welfare dependent mothers, however, we must consider many things. The federal government can spend 1 trillion dollars on unconstitutional wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet they complain about a welfare spending that takes up less than 5% of the Federal Budget? Also, who says the government has to distribute foodstamps in the first place? If the federal government can afford to give states $2 for every $1 they collect in child support, then they can afford to feed and house poor people. The Federal Reserve printed up billions to bail out corporations, why not bail out the people?

8. Cap amounts and Spending: It is outrageous that a custodial parent can claim $10,000 a month just by getting pregnant BY a wealthy person, perhaps even get HIS house too! With the magic of “no-fault divorces”, someone can literally get pregnant by a wealthy man, divorce him for no reason, and take half of his assets for the next 18 years. Caps need to be developed based on cost of living in the state, so that divorces are not incentivized for those looking for a quick lottery ticket! Additionally, the paying parent needs to have tools available to hold the custodial parent accountable for how his money is being spent. Custodial parents should be given prepaid cards that are trackable. Housing, Food, day care, school-supplies, medical expenses, clothes,…..these things would be acceptable charges. However, if the custodial parent used the card to buy alcohol, vacations, TV’s, and other non-essential items, those charges would be disputed. This card system could create an argument that the custodial parent needs more money and/or less. Another option could be to use the left over money at the end of every month and have it automatically go into a trust fund for the child and/or to be applied to arrears.

9. Create a Child Visitation Enforcement Agency: Parental Alienation is a HUGE epidemic. Fathers have to spend thousands of dollars in legal fees to get basic access to their children with no help from the state. If there is to be a child support enforcement agency, there needs to be an agency or hotline for non-custodial parents to call if they are actively being denied access. In many cases, fathers go years without being able to see their kids because of expensive legal fees, phony restraining orders, and cooperative mothers.

10. Mediation first- Court Second: Before a mother and father ever see a judge, both parties should be required to attend mediation first. Have a worker use the child support model as a starting point, then allow each parent to discuss and negotiate with one another and come to agreeable plan. If the parents cannot communicate properly or the order is later deemed insufficient, then the judge can step in and give his own calculated orders. My point is, give the parents one last chance to solve things without government intrusion!

These are just a few ideas I have. This idea that we must punish and throw people in jail only works on those rare individuals who CAN afford child support yet choose to hide their assets or use trickery. However, most of these laws, albeit well intended, end up turning the middle-class and poor into criminalized debt-slaves.

Earlier this year, I submitted a 54 complaint to the Human Rights Council in Geneva,Switzerland addressing the global epidemic of unfairness in the family law courts around the world. A portion of that report can be found at https://naliniglobal.wordpress.com/human-rights-reporting/

As a historian, many people ask me, “What do you think the worst day in human history was ?” I’m sure if I lived during the “black plague” in the 13th century or the “Mongol Invasions” lead under Ghengis Khan in the 11th century, my answer might be different. However, as a 30 year old man living in the 21st century, my answer has to be “September 11th, 2001”. Although we are only 17 years into this century, less than a year in, the worst attack on American soil in our nation’s history took place, causing unforgettable mass panic and fear. A fear that has never quite evaporated from our conscious.

Not just for Americans, but for humanity as a whole. It’s no secret that the United States is considered the world’s super-power in terms of economics and military strength. Thus, when such a nation is attacked, it brings forth world-wide consequences. The September 11th attacks resulted in thousands of innocent American citizen casualties, thousands of US military causalities, and more than a million deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan; most of who were not enemy combatants. In fact, the nation of Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11—-Alas, that is a conversation for a different day. Economically, it resulted in Trillions of dollars being spent, causing world-wide massive inflation and debt.

16 years later, the wars in the middle east as a result of these attacks are still ongoing.

Since 9/11/2001, a complete overhaul of what it means to be “free” and “safe” has been forever altered. These attacks gave birth to Islamophobia, wars in Libya, Iraq,Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, and increased terrorism in countries outside the United States. France, UK, Germany, Sudan, Burma, Canada, all of which have had tensions with Muslims since 9/11. Another side effect of the 9/11 attacks is the attack on our personal liberties under the guise of “protection”.

Because of these attacks, the United States felt compelled to pass laws like the “Patriot Act” and the “National Defense Authorization Act of 2012”. The Patriot Act was passed under the Bush administration which allowed the government to supersede the need for a warrant to seize property or wiretap phones, so long as suspected “terrorism” was cited for the reason. The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, passed under the Obama administration, specifically sections 1021 and 1022, allows for the indefinite detention of American Citizens without use of trial; so long as their is “suspicion” of terrorism involved; A word that is still not completely defined.

Another response to the 9/11 attacks was the creation of the Transportation Administration Administration , A.K.A- TSA. The TSA also coincided with newly created government “watchlists” and “no-fly lists“. Anyone can be secretly put onto these lists for a host of arbitrary reasons, such as posting something negative about the government on social media, without the person being formally accused of any crime in a judicial court. Many people have been put on such lists for simply sharing a similar name to a former criminal. The procedure for getting off the list is also very limited and the results are usually not successful and/or very time consuming. According to a report issued by the Department of Defense and later publicized by the ACLU in 2009 , see —(,https://www.aclu.org/news/fbi-inspector-general-reports-35-percent-error-rate-terror-watchlist) revealed that more than 35% of people put on watch-lists were done so in error or without good cause. Once put on such a list, most people remain there indefinitely with no expiration or “probationary” date. Some people as young as 7 years old have been put on the list, revoking their ability to travel via air permanently.

Soon, other countries began to follow suit. The United Kingdom responded to the 9/11 attacks with the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 which allowed for indefinite detention of non-nationals in the UK. The Criminal Justice Act of 2003 passed in the UK parliament, also allowed for double-jeopardy pending new evidence being submitted. Something completely unheard of in most westernized judicial systems. However, the Prevention of Terrorism Act of 2005 was the most egregious law attacking British civil liberties. Under this legislation, the government was then allowed to tag, monitor, and detain anyone “suspected” of terrorism with little (if any) oversight from the courts.

In 2013, Edward Snowden, a former IT specialist with the CIA, leaked the NSA’s “spy program” to the public, that was operating under the authority of the Patriot Act. Snowden discovered that nearly all communication devices in the United States and parts of Europe were being monitored 24/7 by governing powers with the cooperation of major corporations in secrecy. Such a leak turned Snowden in a political refugee who was forced to flee to Russia, a country that previously had a war with the US backed “Mujahadeen” in the 1980s. In October of 2015, I met Ben Wizner, Snowden’s attorney, at a conference, who stated that Mr. Snowden desires to come back home to the United States, a dream that Wizner hopes will someday come true.

Since 9/11, Muslim extremists have attacked subway stations, parades, and other social events, such as the “Boston Marathon Bombings” and the recent attacks in Paris,France. These extremists often use guerrilla warfare or nontraditional methods to attack their hosts. They are not like a traditional standing army that fights in a formation with a designated uniform. As a result, the use of unmanned “spy drones” have been deployed in war. These drones can hover for days, monitoring human movement, equipped with weaponry. This technology is now being used by domestic law enforcement against civilians.

To this day, many speculate on ‘why” the attacks on 9/11 happened. Some say that the middle eastern culture is simply barbaric or is “jealous” of our liberal way of life. Others, such as former FBI director, Michael Scheurer, and former Texas Congressman Ron Paul, cite foreign policy moves in the past, like the sanctions placed on Iraq during the Clinton era that resulted in over 500,000 starving to death, for being potential causes of the 9/11 attacks. Some conspiracy theorists claim it was an “inside job” perpetrated by profiteers. Regardless of “why” it happened, a response to these attacks were justified. Whether or not the United States responded correctly is an on-going debate. Personally, I think that the Bush administration and the Obama administration did some “good things” and some “bad things”, just as any other president would do. It’s a “gray” area that continues today. The question still lingers…

“How do we respect individual liberty while still keeping us safe?”

Just as during WWII and the Cold-War era, there is a witch-hunt happening. In the cold-war era, anyone who was negative or critical of government was automatically labeled a “communist” or “Nazi” and could be imprisoned under the Smith Act of 1940 for having certain political affiliations . I fear that the same thing is happening today. Yes, there are terrorists in the world. Yes, there is a threat from Muslim extremism and domestic extremists. However, I feel that it is far too easy, legislatively, to label some person/protestor, common criminal or an activity as “terroristic”, so that the burdens of judicial oversight can be ignored, thus making some bureaucrat’s job easier to go after people they deem, “unpatriotic” or ideologically “unfavorable” to mainstream politics. Very reminiscent of the 1950’s which spawned the COINTEL program lead under J. Edgar Hoover.

These current parameters are certainly a slippery-slope that has effected many innocent people arbitrarily placed on surveillance, made to be informants against their will, and so forth. People live in constant fear of being “labeled”, thus, free speech and dissent become muffled.

“Have a negative view of your government? You better delete that last comment on Facebook, or else you may get a knock on your door!” – A quote you hear all too often these days.

However, on the other hand, the United States government cannot simply “do nothing” when such attacks happen like the ones that occurred on 9/11. A government’s natural reaction is to prevent such attacks from re-occurring and to reassure the public. The problem is, many disagree on how to achieve that goal. Yet, the important thing is, we all agree that we never want to see something like this happen again. The question remains, is the so called “War on Terror” a winnable war? Can it be won? Have they already defeated us by making us change our values so much? I certainly believe that Americans and the rest of the western world certainly suffers from a form of PTSD after witnessing the 9/11 attacks. Fear and anxiety certainly envelop many of us when we fly or travel since those attacks occurred.

The attacks on the World Trade Center not only sent shockwaves through the hearts of Americans, but it also caused a catastrophic change in our values as a nation. As these values changed, so did the rest of the world’s values. As the world’s super-power, the entire globe was watching, listening, taking notes, and following suit.

16 years later. The war continues. Many sons and daughters are fighting in the same wars that their mothers and fathers served in. Many children of deceased US soldiers carry resentment towards Muslims. Children of deceased middle eastern civilians carry resentment towards Americans. The cycle of hate and fear continue while those everyday people who have nothing to do with these wars get caught in a “legislative drive-by” AKA “Knee-jerk reaction laws”.

September 11th, 2001 permanently changed the way we travel, communicate, and do business. The years leading up to 9/11, the internet was largely an unregulated free-market enterprise rife with expression. Our foreign policy entanglements were limited to brief skirmishes, green cards were relatively easy to obtain and the world was a lot more “self governing”. Unfortunately, I do not see these trends reversing anytime soon. At the very least, we may be able to “weaken” some of these invasive measures, such as what happened with the “Patriot Act”. (later renamed the Freedom Act, which limited some of the powers of the Patriot Act).

If you are under the age of 40, and live in any westernized nation, it is very plausible and arguable to say that the September 11th attack was the worst day in your lifetime, perhaps not on a personal scale (factoring in death of relatives, health issues ect..), but on a public scale for humanity,western culture,values, and those who hold Libertarian leaning values.

Even if you disagree with my statement of 9/11 being the worst day in the 21st century, none can argue that it didn’t permanently change the geo-political landscape of this world. If you can recognize that fact, then you will see the rationale behind such a bold statement.

Where do we go from here? How do we heal a wound that still bleeds 16 years later in a society that continues to divide? Forget Islamaphobia, attacks on civil liberties or the possibility of ISIS invading the United States. What scares me the most is that we are forgetting the values that bind us. Values that are explicitly and universally stated in the United States Constitution, the International Declaration of Human Rights, and even in most major religions like Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, and even Islam.

Thou shalt not kill…

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you….

Treat foreign aliens as if they were your family….

Do not murder…

Kindness begets kindness…

use resources sparingly…

let a non-believer relish in his own ways so long as he does no personal harm to you…

These are universal principles found everywhere in the world. Principles that have been overshadowed by fear, angst, anxiety, and our need to “right” about everything.

It is my dream that September 11th, 2001, can transform itself from being the worst day in the 21st century, to becoming a catalyst for conversation that enlightens all of us, a sort of renaissance/enlightenment for mankind. If you are reading this article, perhaps we are one step closer to achieving that dream.

On August 22nd, 2017, I was invited to be a guest speaker for the “Decentralize Your Life Tour”. A national tour spearheaded by Libertarian Activist, Derrick Broze, who often finds himself in the cross-hairs of government through his independent journalism. Mr.Broze covered the “Standing Rock” protests in the Dakotas and has traveled the world advocating for a freer society. Being involved in protests have often caused him legal troubles, which is common in the practice of civil disobedience.

His message was that of, “Opting out” of the system and finding non-governmental solutions to societies problems. A notion that seems to have much support these days in light of government sponsored controversies which so frequently headline our news media outlets today.

However, when it was my turn to speak, my message, albeit sympathetic to Mr.Broze’s message of “Laissez Faire Capitalism” and “community works”, I reminded the audience that our current system is here to stay for a long time and we must learn to harness its positivity while reducing its negativity, until it is potentially no longer needed.. Additionally, those who work in government are human beings with hearts who are capable of doing great change for the world themselves and should not be looked down upon. Changing a paradigm isn’t something that happens overnight, it requires a multi-tiered approach.

I outlined several abnormalities and injustices found today within the legal system and what we can do to educate and empower ourselves while in tandem, working with government officials. Reforms and innovations are both equally effective at creating a better world for those who live in it. With the rise of the Alt-Right and Alt-Left, (Neo-Nazis Vs Antifa), we are living in very polarizing times, however, I believe a middle-ground in these debates are just what the doctor ordered!

Watch the video below to check out my introductory speech. In the speech, I make reference to my shadow report regarding corruption in the family law courts. That report can be found on the “Human Rights Reporting Page” on this website.